Saturday, 5 May 2018

Sec. 80P deduction available on interest from investments with co-op. bank; Tax deduction u/s. 194C cannot make

ITAT: Allows Sec. 80P deduction on co-operative society’s interest income from investments with co-operative bank   

Mumbai ITAT allows Sec. 80P deduction on interest income derived by a co-operative society (‘assessee’) from its investments held with a co-operative bank during AY 2014-15; Refers to Sec. 80P(2)(d) which provides that income by way of interest income derived by an assessee cooperative society from its investments held with any other cooperative society, shall be deducted in computing the total income of the assessee; Clarifies that “though the co-operative bank pursuant to the insertion of Sub-section (4) of Sec. 80P would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P of the Act, but however, as a co-operative bank continues to be a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 (2 of 1912), or under any other law for the time being enforced in any state for the registration of cooperative societies..”; Relies on Karnataka HC ruling in Totagars Cooperative Sale Society and Gujarat HC ruling in State Bank Of India
ITAT: Tax deduction u/s. 194C no reason to treat genuine developer as contractor; Allows Sec. 80IA benefit
Mumbai ITAT allows Sec 80IA benefit to assessee engaged in construction and development of infrastructure facilities, holds that merely because assessee is 'contractor' to the government for development of roads, it cannot derogate assessee from being 'developer'; ITAT clarifies that “merely because, in the TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor.”; Further, referring to the legislative amendments in Sec. 80-IA(4), ITAT observes that from AY 2002-03, deduction under section 80-IA(4) is available even if the assessee carries on any one of the three types of activities viz. (i) developing, (ii) maintaining or (iii) operating infrastructure facility; ITAT remarks that “As per the amended provisions merely on entering into an agreement with Government for development of infrastructure facility would be eligible for deduction”
ITAT:Denies deduction u/s. 57 for PMS, professional charges and salaries against dividend / interest income
Bangalore ITAT denies assessee-individual’s claim of deduction u/s. 57 for PMS charges, salaries, professional charges against the dividend / interest income (assessable as income from other sources) for AY 2012-13; Referring to Sec. 57, ITAT notes that assessee’s claim does not fall under the ambit of deduction under clause (i) of Sec. 57, further, with respect to allowability of deduction under clause (iii), ITAT notes that assessee did not establish that expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning the dividend / interest income; With respect to assessee’s reliance on SC ruling in Rajendra Prasad Moody, ITAT remarks that “this judgment does not help assessee in the absence of any details as required u/s. 57(iii)..”, also rejects assessee’s reliance on Tribunal order in East West Hotels ltd, because the assessee in the present case is not a company and therefore, there is no such legal compulsion to incur the expenses which are claimed in the present case; Furthermore rejects assessee’s alternative argument that even if expenses are not allowable u/s. 57, the same should be allowed against income from capital gain in the present year or future years, holds that the claim of expenses in present case is not for those expenses which are incurred on account of transfer of asset or cost of acquisition / improvement of asset as contemplated u/s. 48
SC: Dismisses SLP; HC-appeal limitation period begins even if non-jurisdictional 'commissioner' receives ITAT order
SC dismisses Revenue’s SLP against Delhi HC judgement; HC had ruled that the words ‘the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner’ occurring in Sec 260A(2)(a) (relating to limitation period for filing appeal before HC) is not limited only to 'jurisdictional' Principal or Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (‘CIT’), clarifies that it could include any CIT including the CIT (Judicial); HC had rejected Revenue’s stand that unless the concerned CIT having jurisdiction over assessee receives a certified copy of ITAT order, the limitation of 120 days within which an appeal has to be filed does not commence; HC had clarified that in absence of a qualifying prefix ‘concerned’, the receipt of ITAT order copy by any of the officers (designated as CIT), including the CIT (Judicial) will trigger the period of limitation

No comments: